The abstract is:
The successful translation of laboratory research into effective new treatments is dependent
upon the validity of peer-reviewed published findings. Scientists developing new cancer
therapeutics and biomarkers use these initial published observations as the foundation for their projects. However, several recent publications suggested that published scientific findings could only be reproduced 11–45% of the time. We developed an anonymous survey specifically for graduate students and postdoctoral fellows involved in bench research. The results indicated that the pressure to publish and the publication process greatly impact the scientific community and appear to influence a shift in their ethics from honest reporting to selective reporting or data falsification. We believe these findings may have an impact on the scientific community regarding our methods of mentoring and training, and the importance of honest reporting, that should pre-empt the temptation to present data simply to publish in a journal with a higher impact factor.

Disclosure of interest – I have a significant publication record in peer reviewed journals and am a reviewer for some.

David

robertguyton

David

I am guessing [Don’t guess things you don’t know about ticks], even my complimentary post about Ardern.
Its quite an extraordinary talk, there are some quite amazing environmental projects being undertaken.

robertguyton

Agreed, David – there’s some very good discussions happening presently in the farming community around regenerative agriculture. I thought, “Don’t guess things you don’t know about” was a hilarious directive! Most people here would be rendered unable to post a comment under that rule 🙂

chrism56

Is this the same person who commented but admitted they knew very little about conditions on the East Coast? Is that a facepalm or just plain hypocrisy?
I can see eroding farmland on Maori land blocks out my kitchen window. I suspect Maggy is in a similar situation up on the East Coast.

chrism56

Robert – Your quoting of a headlines shows exactly the problem I pointed out in the problems with peer reviews. You didn’t bother to read the report, did you. If you had, you would have seen buried in the text, figures showing where the majority of the soil loss is. It is the upland East Coast and western King Country. Now how many dairy farms or intensive agriculture is there? 5/8 of FA. Almost all of that land would have massive soil loss even without farming being there. In areas known for new dairying conversions, like upper Waikato, Canterbury or Southland, there is next to no soil loss shown on the map.
So the whole newspaper headline and your swallowing of it shows how gullible people are.

robertguyton

Almost half, the report says, is lost from farmed land: “A major Government report out this morning also found nearly half of that loss was coming from pastures”. The upland East Coast and Western King Country, chrism56, isn’t in its native state, is it? Though I’m not very famiar with the area, I’ll hazard a guess and say that it’s been fully-farmed to the extent that it’s ruined. Agriculture’s the problem.

chrism56

No Robert – you can’t even get that right . Almost all that land is very erosion prone – that includes the areas still in native bush that has never been logged like the Raukumaras and King Country. You only have to see those rivers in flood, even just where they come out of the bush, to see the soil transport.
And you are being disingenuous – you paraphrased the headlines without even reading the report because of confirmation bias.

chrism56

Many of the areas shown as highly erosion prone are Maori land blocks. They can’t be converted to forestry as the topsoil is so thin, the trees don’t grow. And the land goes to the sea, whether it is farmed or not.
As you can’t do maths, the average soil loss from “exotic grassland” according to the report is 0.7mm a year – That is the average which is massively skewed by the areas on the East Cape having more than 20,000 tonnes per square kilometer per year eroded off it. Most of the farm land on their map is less than 50 tonnes per year.

robertguyton

chrism56

I also note the report says this:
“Understanding recent soil erosion trends in Aotearoa New Zealand is challenging, as to date there has been no comprehensive national monitoring programme for erosion (see Data gaps for soil). Results from land cover analyses have suggested erosion has been decreasing since the 1980s, probably as a result of increased scrubland and plantation forestry (Dymond et al, 2010; Basher, 2013). ”
So things are getting better – yet another fail Robert – not a good success rate have you?

Alan Wilkinson

Even without any digging I noted that the SI west coast was highlighted as erosion prone. Hello? With it’s huge rainfall, minimal farming, extensive bush and mountain terrain, and geologic history showing erosion disappearing into the sea rather than creating the eastern plains – why on earth is that a surprise?

chrism56

No Alan – it is worse than that. They specifically excluded land that wasn’t farmed, forested or urbanised from the analysis. So magically, there was no reportable erosion from those areas like bush covered mountain peaks or the Southern Alps.
It was a politicized report that had the fake news headlines fed to the media. No doubt this report will be used by the eager Minister as the basis to restrict dairy farming practices.

Alan Wilkinson

robertguyton

“erosion has been decreasing since the 1980s” – not exactly a ringing endorsement, is it? So much was lost then and losses continue (at a slower rate? Yippee!). As with water quality, we laud our practices now, saying they’re better than they were in the recent past, but they’re still poor; visited some of our estuaries lately? No raw offal being discharged into our rivers? Celebrations! We’re clean and green! Can’t see nitrogen, so it all good.

chrism56

Proving you wrong Robert is like shooting fish in a barrel. Here is what the report you started this thread says on it
“Soil quality data from 11 regions show that results for 83 percent or more of tested sites were within target range for five of the seven indicators (pH, total carbon, total nitrogen, mineralisable nitrogen, and bulk density). ”
So they don’t see nitrogen as a big concern as it is within the target range. The authors saw it as so small an issue that there was no further comment.

Kitty Catkin

Farmers are often vilified in a way that makes them seem like idiots who don’t see or care that these things are bad business practice, even if the farners had no other reason not to do them ; it’s unlikely that farmers would not care for the land and environment. There may be some, but I’d guess that they are a small minority,

Kitty Catkin

chrism56

Yet again Robert, you are proving Alan’s comments about stupidity and banality. What has a single paper from the US got to do with MoE not identifying Nitrogen as a significant problem? No-one is denying that there are issues in some catchments, but it is nowhere no the public health risk of say turds (technically coliform bacteria) in the water of city beaches. Even at the “dangerous” levels that some Canterbury bore waters are supposed to have reached, the risk identified was just to bottle fed babies.

chrism56

You are being stupid again Robert. Public Health risk is number of people exposed times the seriousness of the illness/ disease. The diseases that people can catch off beaches kill and have done so. They have also hospitalised many. High nitrate levels can be fatal for blue baby syndrome (it doesn’t affect adults) but there have been no recorded deaths. There has been anecdotal evidence that is has been the cause of some babies getting sick, but no definitive stuff. So yes, the evidence is that turds in the water is a lot higher public health risk than nitrates in the groundwater.

Still with the personal insults – what is it with you people?
“blue baby syndrome (it doesn’t affect adults)”
Wow! Thanks for the clarification.
chrism – I’m sure you, with your powerful science brain, will agree; though pathogens from human faeces is a greater threat to human health, nitrates remain a threat, even if only to those “bottle-fed” babies you so ruthlessly dismiss.

Kitty Catkin

Don’t rise and explain, Chrism, he just wants to make you say it again. I have had pupils like him, they like to pretend to misunderstand so that you have to explain it over and over. Most people outgrow it by the time they are 14 or 15, some, alas, don’t.

Kitty Catkin

David

The DNC are going to sue the Trump campaign over all things the hacking of their emails, given the DNCs boss,s password was password, he was warned about hackers who had tried to hack the RNC but did nothing about it. After the hack he refused to hand the server to the FBI to help find who hacked them.
Even CNN are calling this a fund raising stunt but like the Dems calling Russia collusion which has resulted in them looking terrible the upshot could be having to hand over the server as part of disclosure.

Gezza

Might all work out ok in the end. Gotta feel for them. They had a really, really bad time of it & ended up losing the Presidency to a narcissitic, overgrown, brat. I’ll cut them some slack & wish them all the best. 👍🏼

David

Who despite all of that has almost defeated ISIS, brought NK to the negotiating table and caused them to halt nuclear testing, is sorting some terrible trade practices, has reduced illegal immigration by 70%, seen the lowest black unemployment rate ever, is creating a couple of hundred thousand jobs a month and is overseeing a booming economy.
It must drive the Dems absolutely insane., Hilary is still on tour 18 months later complaining.

Gezza

1. He hasn’t defeated ISIS, the Iraquis & Kurds have mostly done that & most of the planning & logistics were organised under Obama. The US mostly provided flying artillery.
2. Kim’s (just about) brought Trump to the negotiating table, the plan all along has been to con Trump. Easy enuf to do. Lots of folk have done it.
3. Possibly his policies have created more jobs & got a few low paid workers a bonus where they weren’t among those simultaneously given the elbow in closures. Too soon to see long term impact of Trumpian Speakoconomics.
4. Has introduced tarriffs & long-term impact is not clear. Xi has launched a major buy Chinese campaign in China & embarked on improving manufacturing quality & competing against America in all markets.
5. Gotta feel sorry for the Democrats. Poor bastards. What a shower.

David

That is not very charitable for a Sunday Gezza, even his opponents are reluctantly giving him credit for ISIS, the economy and trade wins, getting NATO to pony up, his strikes against Syria…even his approval ratings are starting to lift.
I am off to Vegas and NY in June and I just cant wait, I love America and its lovely people.

Blazer

David

Gezza

You can never get too much Fox Blazer …
You bloody well can! Out of interest I watched Fox a lot for about 3 days, just to see what they were like. Talk about an overdose. Cured me of watching it though. Mind you, they’re easy to ‘live’ on Youtube. CNN’s not, but what clips do get posted are just as awfully parochially bad in the opposite direction. It’s no wonder their viewers brains are destroyed over time.

Gezza

Blazer

David

I watch The Five and the Greg Gutfeld show regularly, quite enjoy Media Buzz sometimes but dont bother with Hannity etc. as I like a bit of balance. Catch CNN at the gym occasionally and its absolutely shocking and I can see why they loosing viewers with their wall to wall anti Trump jihad.

chrism56

Maggy – there is significant erosion from areas that never had the cover removed or burnt off. The lower reaches of the Motu are almost continuous slips. Remember Waikaremoana was formed by a pre-historic slip – how many megatonne there?. But going on the land split shown in Ministry for the Environment report, the erosion rate is higher for indigenous forest than for exotic grassland. Strange they don’t mention that. Errors by omission stuff.

Maggy Wassilieff

Yep,
there’s significant erosion occurring from the high rainfall, forested regions all over NZ.
Always has been.
These are well-known facts …. the original debates were done and dusted by the 1950s.
Of course pest animals and indiscriminate forest clearance exacerbate the erosion.

I’ve given a link to some of the East Coast research below.

A really good analysis of prehistoric erosion periods in the Ruahines/Hawkes Bay (coinciding with warm periods) – is presented in Pat Grant’s Book “Forests of Yesterday”.

Griff

We all can see .
All the easy land was converted to grass long ago.
Much steeper land was also cleared for farming
Once cleared they found that the land was to unstable and allowed it to revert
If I look out the window I can see a mountain range where that happened in Northland.
All around New Zealand the majority of land still in virgin sate is that too steep to even consider for farming .

Converting any land to pasture makes it prone to erosion.
My favorite example is pamure lagoon.
When settlers first turned up it was 60feet deep with a clean sand bottom Our actions in farming the surrounding land resulted in it quickly filling with mud as it is now..

In other words you are pushing crap you know is wrong to spin bullshite for your industry.

chrism56

Good find Maggy.
I see this in the paper ” In the 12 years between 1948 and 1960 about 17 million cubic yards of eroded debris have been spewed into the Mangatu and Waipaoa River beds above the gorge entrance (Messrs D. A. Todd andI. E. Duff-Jones, pers. comm.) , and practically all of it was, and still is, derived from the argillites. The adjoining hills of Haumurian argillite, by contrast, are resistant to gully-head erosion in many places. Furthermore, the soil cover on East Coast argillites is not subject to wind erosion, unlike some argillite soils elsewhere in the North Island which are considerably depleted by this type of erosion.”
So that is about 2% of the erosion that Robert was so concerned about coming out of a tiny subcatchment.
Reading the paper, the pre-historic forest cover has been removed, which has accelerated the erosion, but they can’t get it back as the soil is so poor and it doesn’t hang around long enough for plants to establish.

Alan Wilkinson

robertguyton

Alan, you are relentless in your insulting, “lunatic”, “idiot” – personal slights flow from you like pus from a suppurating wound. Pete seems not to care, though he deletes the slights of others – are you his brother?

Conspiratoor

Gezza

lurcher1948

To all you Trump lovers, you do know the truth is stretched in his life but also you know anything Mr Trumps involved in is the biggest and best, worth a read, shows the man’s mindset
While the elevator buttons say his penthouse apartment occupies floors 66, 67 and 68, that is not actually correct. Floors 6 through 13 do not exist in the building. Nor do floors 27, 28 or 29. The unusual numbering was done so Trump could boast that his building is taller than it is. Trump’s penthouse triplex, in reality, is on floors 55 through 57.

Alan Wilkinson

David

Its a fabulous building and the bar on the ground floor is a great spot, I was there the day he won the Republican nomination.
If you get a moment Lurcher have a read of the competition to build the tallest buildings in New York they are great stories, really funny and just crazy.